[TrumpCard]

FarmBoy:  For those "selling" Dawkins before 12-13, my argument does not apply.  However, for those who decided Dawkins had to go only when Stanford missed the tournament in 12-13, then I think my argument has merit because Stanford's historical standards (which, in reality, refers to the standards for the Mike Montgomery years) had no application for the program in 12-13. 

The goal in 12-13 was to make steady progress from the prior year when Stanford won the NIT, and I think that players who were able to play that year did make such progress.  Powell won the Pac-12 most improved player award and Huestis probably should have won because he won the MIP award for the team.  It's tough to criticize player development when you get that kind of improvement from two key players and when you get significant contributions from guys like Aaron Bright and Andy Brown, who simply are not elite level athletes.  Add Dawkins' indisputably good recruiting to that level of player development and you get a pretty good argument that Dawkins was carrying his weight as the head coach. 

LeftCoast:  I'm not making any argument that Dawkins is the same caliber coach as Mike Montgomery.  I'm simply arguing that he's been a good coach for the last three years.  And, if you compare the results Dawkins achieved relative to the talent/experience he had available to the results that Johnson achieved relative to the talent/experience he had available, it really isn't a close call to say that Dawkins has done better.  I would love to get another Mike Montgomery, but coaches like that don't grow on trees.

[TrumpCard]

FarmBoy:  For those "selling" Dawkins before 12-13, my argument does not apply.  However, for those who decided Dawkins had to go only when Stanford missed the tournament in 12-13, then I think my argument has merit because Stanford's historical standards (which, in reality, refers to the standards for the Mike Montgomery years) had no application for the program in 12-13. 

The goal in 12-13 was to make steady progress from the prior year when Stanford won the NIT, and I think that players who were able to play that year did make such progress.  Powell won the Pac-12 most improved player award and Huestis probably should have won because he won the MIP award for the team.  It's tough to criticize player development when you get that kind of improvement from two key players and when you get significant contributions from guys like Aaron Bright and Andy Brown, who simply are not elite level athletes.  Add Dawkins' indisputably good recruiting to that level of player development and you get a pretty good argument that Dawkins was carrying his weight as the head coach. 

LeftCoast:  I'm not making any argument that Dawkins is the same caliber coach as Mike Montgomery.  I'm simply arguing that he's been a good coach for the last three years.  And, if you compare the results Dawkins achieved relative to the talent/experience he had available to the results that Johnson achieved relative to the talent/experience he had available, it really isn't a close call to say that Dawkins has done better.  I would love to get another Mike Montgomery, but coaches like that don't grow on trees.